A discourse concerning liturgies

It will be easily granted, by the Zealots for prescribed administrations, that there never was any Liturgy, wherein there was not a Form for Consecration (since they think any part of a Liturgy may be more tolerably omitted then this; and those that officiate had better be left at liberty any where, then here) and they will show us such a Form, in all Liturgies extant, Modern or Ancient, or pretended to be Ancient) therefore they cannot reasonably deny, while there were no such Forms in Writing, there were no such Liturgies; and so none in Basils time.

It will be easily granted, by the Zealots for prescribed administrations, that there never was any Liturgy, wherein there was not a Form for Consecration (since they think any part of a Liturgy may be more tolerably omitted then this; and those that officiate had better be left at liberty any where, then here) and they will shew us such a Form, in all Liturgies extant, Modern or Antient, or pretended to be Antient) therefore they cannot reasonably deny, while there were no such Forms in Writing, there were no such Liturgies; and so none in Basils time.

By this also we may discern, what sentence ought to be passed upon those Liturgies, which go under the names, of Peter, Mark, James, Clemens and Basil himself too. In them, the mysteries are clearly described; which, he says, the Ancients thought themselves highly concerned to keep secret. And there we have (as a most necessary part of them) the Form of Consecration in Writing; which, he says, no Holy Man ever left in Writing.

By this also we may discern, what sentence ought to be passed upon those Liturgies, which go under the names, of Peter, Mark, James, Clemens and Basil himself too. In them, the mysteries are clearly described; which, he sayes, the Ancients thought themselves highly concerned to keep secret. And there we have (as a most necessary part of them) the Form of Consecration in Writing; which, he sayes, no Holy Man ever left in Writing.